Abstract

Transforming any tool into a mathematical instrument for students involves a complex ‘instrumentation’ process and does not necessarily lead to better mathematical understanding. Analysis of the constraints and potential of the artefact are necessary in order to point out the mathematical knowledge involved in using a calculator. Results of this analysis have an influence on the design of problem situations. Observations of students using graphic and symbolic calculators were analysed and categorised into profiles, illustrating that transforming the calculator into an efficient mathematical instrument varies from student to student, a factor which has to be included in the teaching process.

Goldenberg, E. (1987). Believing is seeing: How preconceptions influence the perception of graphs, Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Montreal, 1, pp. 197-204.Google Scholar

Ruthven, K. and Chaplin, D. (1997). The calculator as a cognitive tool: Upper-primary pupils tackling a realistic number problem, International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 2: 93-124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwartz, B. and Dreyfus, T. (1995). New actions upon old objects: a new ontological perspective on functions, Educational Studies 29: 259-291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shoaf, M. M. (1997). Using the total power of the TI-92! From discovery explorations to complete lab reports, The International Journal of Computer Algebra in Education 4(3): 295-299.Google Scholar

Trouche, L. and Guin, D. (1996). Seeing is reality: How graphic calculators may influence the conceptualisation of limits, Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 323-333), Valencia, 4.Google Scholar

Verillon, P. and Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity, European Journal of Psychology in Education 9(3): 77-101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar